Michael Okwu of NBC wonders if Rush Limbaugh's parody song has crossed the line, but it would appear that ole is Rush getting a pass. Paul Waldman and my pal David Ehrenstein were interviewed for the segment.

I've anonymously confirmed that stations around the country who carry the show are having concerns expressed by listeners and even their own workers of color about the Obama parody, and the ensuing controversy in the media, and that respective managements are considering ways to address the matter with as little Imus-like backlash as possible,..

A Limbaugh fan noticed there was a disclaimer added to the station she listens to and calls Rush in panic mode.

Caller: I'm in full panic mode...Rush: Why? Caller: I've heard three times today a disclaimer on 760...

The 10th Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Supporters of states’ rights argue that the 10th Amendment grants the states more power than the federal government, because if it isn’t a power granted by the Constitution to the federal government, it is a power of the state.

But the U.S. Supreme Court routinely has rejected states’ claims that the federal government has overstepped its bounds and violated the 10th Amendment.

In Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court said that state agencies did not have to perform federally mandated background checks of individuals trying to purchase a handgun, but since the background checks were federal law, federal agencies were allowed to conduct background checks. Essentially the ruling says that states don’t have to participate in federal laws, but they can’t prevent federal agencies from enforcing those laws.

The concept of nullification is based on 'interposition,' wherein the state determines it has the 'right' to interpose itself to block or ignore federal laws it considers unconstitutional. However, Article III of that very constitution grants the federal judiciary SOLE authority to interpret the constitution. The concept of nullification has never been legally upheld. Perhaps the Rev might restrict himself to misinterpreting the Bible rather than the law.